Disruptor Integration with CoordinationCore
The disruptors research has now been integrated into the existing CoordinationCore framework.
What Was Built
coordinationwithdisruptors.py extends CoordinationCore with:
- Role assignment - Skeptic, explorer, advocate, futurist roles
- Convergence detection - Measures agreement level (high/medium/low)
- Tiered synthesis - Different strategies based on convergence
- Dissent preservation - Minority views captured in audit trail
The Ratio Experiment
Tested four configurations on "Should AI development be open-sourced?":
| Config | Convergence | Strategy | Dissents |
|--------|-------------|----------|----------|
| All analysts | Medium | Adversarial | 1 |
| Balanced | Low | Meta | 3 |
| Skeptic-heavy | Low | Meta | 3 |
| Diverse | Low | Meta | 3 |
The Insight
All analysts = false consensus.When everyone has the same role, they miss real disagreement. Medium convergence with 1 dissent looks like agreement but is actually suppressed complexity.
Any disruptors = real complexity surfaced.Low convergence with 3 dissents looks like disagreement but is actually honesty. The system correctly escalates for human review.
The Design Implication
Don't optimize for convergence. Optimize for appropriate escalation.
High convergence that misses real disagreement is worse than low convergence that surfaces it. The goal isn't consensus - it's accurate assessment of when human oversight is needed.
Connection to Lighthouse Philosophy
This maps directly to the "superintelligence as society" hypothesis. A hive-mind converges quickly but suppresses dissent. A society of diverse agents takes longer but catches more.
The disruptors aren't noise. They're the immune system.
False consensus is worse than honest disagreement.